News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at or before 0000 GMT on May 25th.

After thinking and praying about some of the discussion on OCANews about the history of Orthodoxy in America, I decided to present an overview of the history of the Russian Mission in order to show that we should be careful about the claims we make based on that history. Specifically, I wish to address the misconception that the presence of the Russian Mission on the North American continent precludes the canonical presence of any other jurisdiction in North America. Often this belief is paired with a belief in Orthodox unity prior to the Russian Revolution, a simplistic view unsustained by the actual history of the Russian Mission itself. Typically, this is argued in response to the manner in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate interprets Chalcedon canon twenty-eight, in order to argue for the right to oversee Orthodox Christians in the New World, but I will not argue for such a misapplication of the canon. I do not think we should place our hope in either error (that from history or that from the canon). I realize that some may be concerned about the upcoming meeting in Constantinople in June and where that will leave the OCA in relation to worldwide Orthodoxy, but I do not think it is healthy in the long-run to base our position on a faulty argument from history.

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

But what about the article's thesis that the way you're arguing your point is excessively simplistic and divisive? How about addressing that rather than getting hung up on the article's apparent lack of proper citations (which you may, in fact, be advancing as an ad hominem argument to distract us from looking at the real problem)?

It's probably worth noting the author is a priest in the OCA. I very much agree with this statement that he makes

Quote

I believe an honest look at the history should cause those of us in the OCA to be humbler in how we state our claims. To call the other jurisdictions uncanonical is unfair in light of the complicated history of the Russian Mission. Such an argument risks being heard and read as nothing short of inflammatory and should that happen, we are likely to hinder the kind of dialogue many of us would wish to see in order to obtain a united American Orthodox Church.

It's probably worth noting the author is a priest in the OCA. I very much agree with this statement that he makes

Quote

I believe an honest look at the history should cause those of us in the OCA to be humbler in how we state our claims. To call the other jurisdictions uncanonical is unfair in light of the complicated history of the Russian Mission. Such an argument risks being heard and read as nothing short of inflammatory and should that happen, we are likely to hinder the kind of dialogue many of us would wish to see in order to obtain a united American Orthodox Church.

THAT I read as the crux of the whole article, and THAT is what I would like to see addressed in this discussion.

It's probably worth noting the author is a priest in the OCA. I very much agree with this statement that he makes

Quote

I believe an honest look at the history should cause those of us in the OCA to be humbler in how we state our claims. To call the other jurisdictions uncanonical is unfair in light of the complicated history of the Russian Mission. Such an argument risks being heard and read as nothing short of inflammatory and should that happen, we are likely to hinder the kind of dialogue many of us would wish to see in order to obtain a united American Orthodox Church.

While I agree with the sentiment as a wise approach to unity in North America, I should point out that Father Oliver is the priest of the St. Nicholas Mission in Fargo, ND, in the Diocese (?) of Toledo and the Midwest, AOCA.

The following information may also be of consequence (from Orthodox Christians for Accountability where Father Oliver's reflection was posted.

"Fr Oliver /is/ a scholar of "American Church History and Canon Law" and is about to defend his doctorate at St Louis University on the history of intra-Christian conversion to Orthodoxy in America. He has published a variety of scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals in patristics, church history and theology and has a book of translations of Sarapion of Thumis forthcoming. Lastly, he was a student of Fr John Erickson in both Church History and Canon Law as we were at St Vladimir's together. His brief very clear overview of a very complex area shows both a mastery of the sources and a dedication to truth above the beloved historical myths of some in the OCA. Fr Oliver, in fact, is now one of the few academic historians specializing in the history of Orthodoxy in America so his contribution is most welcome.Brandon Gallaher(Regent's Park College, U of Oxford)#3.2 Brandon Gallaher on 2009-04-21 09:51"

My take on his work is that while Father Oliver is trying to calm the waters, so to speak, he is not really addressing the primary problem: we have a mess here. As Metropolitan Jonah did say in his Lenten sermon, we are faced with a dilemma here and our task is to organize in such a way as to accomplish the mission that the Lord has given us: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

But what about the article's thesis that the way you're arguing your point is excessively simplistic and divisive? How about addressing that rather than getting hung up on the article's apparent lack of proper citations (which you may, in fact, be advancing as an ad hominem argument to distract us from looking at the real problem)?

Christ is Risen!

I find it a rather intriguing thesis that pointing out that someone has failed to argue, let alone substantiate, his thesis constitutes an ad hominem attack. I rather dislike having to make someone arguement for them just to refute it with coherence.

Let's put the "excessively simplistic and divisive" litmus test to the portion I quoted:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s

Excessively simplistic:the parish's own web site itselfhttp://www.holytrinitycathedral.org/history.htmlmakes reference to the Russians, Serbians and Arabs that made up the original population along with the Greeks, and to the Ukrainian priest Agapij Honcharenko was served as the first priest. "Greeks in America," Thomas Burgess, an early source (1913, i.e. before the founding of the GOARCH) showshttp://www.holytrinitycathedral.org/history.htmlthe Czar of Russia gave that parish its vestments and sacred vessels (they still display the Gospel Book), and that the Church's records were in English (as many didn't know Greek, not being Greek). As this would be through the local Russian bishop, it is rather hard to argue that the Greeks were unaware of the bishop. http://books.google.com/books?id=0rOzGa-KjygC&pg=PA24&dq=New+York+Russian+consulate+OrthodoxBurgess also notes "in all these places [he lists a number of Pan-Orthodox founding parishes, under the Russian bishops], as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens."

and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York.

LOL. Yes, parishes. Excessively simplistic: The original organization, the Society of Athena (founded with the help IIRC of a Greek Prince who passed through New York on an American Tour) received a priest, Fr. Ferentinos from the CoG. The Board of Trustees didn't along with the Society, however, so they seperated the parish administration from the Society. The Society then founded another parish and got a priest from the EP, who was unaware of the goings on in NY. Fr. Ferentinos ended up in New Orleans. http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA131&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA130,M1

Divisive: before the Russian Mission returned to New York. That would mean it was there first. (btw, the article's characterization of Fr. Bjerring's mission conflicts with other, DOCUMENTED, sources I've read. Hence I would like to know what Fr. Herbel is getting his information). It is fair to assume that the Imperial Russian Consulate also saw to religious services, as it did in SF and other places until a permanent parish was set up, in the interum. Not terribly important, as a couple years after the founding of the Society of Athena, we find this from the hagiography of St. Raphael Hawaweeny:

Quote

Archimandrite Raphael arrived in New York on November 2, 1895, and was welcomed by a delegation of Arab Christians who were awaiting their leader from Russia. On November 5, his first Sunday in America, he assisted Bishop NICHOLAS in serving the Divine Liturgy at the Russian church in New York city. Less than two weeks after his arrival, Archimandrite Raphael found a suitable place in lower Manhattan to set up a chapel, and furnished it with ecclesiastical items that he had brought with him from Russia. Bishop NICHOLAS blessed the new chapel, which was dedicated to St Nicholas of Myra.

http://antiochianvillage.org/camp/liturgical/patron/straphael.htmlSo nearly the same time as "Greek parishes were established in New York," we have a Russian Bishop in New York, celebrating DL at the (re)constituted Russian Church in NY for the arrival of the future Arab bishop (and saint), the first ordained in the New World, who founded a second parish in NYC, not in the divisive spirit that spawned the Greek parishes, but in the unity of the Arabs within the Russian diocese of America.

Quote

For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument

I'd agree that we need to be very careful. Too bad the article is not. For instance, the excessivly simplistic

Quote

Ft. Ross, which had never been anything more than an outpost chapel, had been abandoned in 1841.

omits that the Russians, Aleuts and Pomo (the local Amerindians in CA) who didn't go to Alaska (and not all did), settled around Sacramento and SF. And the Chaplancy of the Imperial Navy, which provided the needs for the Ft. Ross Chapel, continued to do so in SF, and directly had a role in the founding of Holy Trinity Cathedral in SF. Two of the former governors of the Fort Ross stayed on for the Gold Rush (one patenting a gold wash machine). Holy Trinity was founded with the help of the Honorable George Fisher, a Serb played a role in American history from Mississippi, New Orleans, Texas and then CA, and at the time was the consul for the Greek Kingdom, hence representative of the Holy Synod of the CoG. It also omits the fact that around the time of the founding of the GOARCH, Fr. Ross Chapel had been returned to Orthodox worship, as continues to this day. It is also divisive, as it implies that the foundations by the disobedient, which how even the Chief Secretary characterizes the origins of the Greek parishes, somehow should be put on a par with the canonical episcopate which was established in New York (evidently the only place that counts in the article) before the establishment of episcopal oversight, let alone the presence of a bishop, by any other "jurisdiction."

Of course, the Amerindian Orthodox-Aleut, Tlingit, Kashaya Pomo, etc.-where in America first, and they were, and are, under the Russian/OCA bishops.

Quote

and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

Excessively simplistic:no one really claims a diocese on the continent until the CoG does so in 1918, and then makes Archb. Meletios of Athens, still resident in Athens (i.e. not in America) bishop of said "diocese." By then, nearly two decades had passed since the Russian Church had organized its diocese into the Archdiocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, with vicar bishops for Alaska, for the Arabs, etc. with bishops criss-crossing the continent visiting parishes in all corners of it.

Divisive: whereas the Russian Orthodox Church had organized and built the diocese that spaned the continent and all communities, neither CoG nor Constantinople had ANY direct part in building the Church in America, something the Chief Secretary admits and bemoans. Case in point: when St. Tikhon went to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC in 1904, he was basically expelled, and the parish incorporated itself to prevent it being taken over by St. Tikhon, the only hiearch of a hiearchal Church, which the Orthodox Church is (the distinction is important for American law). Anywhere else, this would be called schismatic: why is it acceptable in America? In contrast, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Chicago (which predated the one in NYC) invited St. Tikhon to come serve in 1901, which he did.

So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below? BY NO MEANS!

Quote

And now for the position of the priest, the pastor (ephemerios) of the community. He has no power as far as the written constitution goes. Thus we find a most anomolous condition in the Greek churches in America. It works something like the worst side of the vestry system of the Episcopal Church parishes, without the legal rights of the rector, nor the possibility of intervention by the Bishop; or another analogy might apply in some instances,-Congregationalsim run wild in a mission of the Apostolic, Catholic, Eastern Church! From afar the Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens (note: The Patriarch of Constantinople has ceded to the Holy Synod of Athens the charge of the Greek Orthodox missions in America) rules without the possibility of settling anything, much as the Bishop of London had charge of the Anglican parishes in this country before the Revelotion. So the Greek priest is hired, and often "fired," by a parish committee composed usually of poorly educated peasants. And thus come the wranglings and disputes and divisions into two rival church communities of a city; and thus the poor priests, sent out by the Holy Synod in response to the cry for spiritual help, sometimes find themselves as office boys at the mercy of their employers. Moreoever, there are also some priests who have no right here; these are Macedonians, mostly of little education, who, coming to America, have slipped their bishop's jurisdiction and are ministering without authority wherever they can make the most money, sometimes underbidding and ousting the priests sent by a bishop. Of course, conditions are not everywhere bad in communities, but the system is sadly irresponsible. The only solution seems to be a resident bishop for America; may his advent be soon!

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

But what about the article's thesis that the way you're arguing your point is excessively simplistic and divisive? How about addressing that rather than getting hung up on the article's apparent lack of proper citations (which you may, in fact, be advancing as an ad hominem argument to distract us from looking at the real problem)?

Christ is Risen!

I find it a rather intriguing thesis that pointing out that someone has failed to argue, let alone substantiate, his thesis constitutes an ad hominem attack. I rather dislike having to make someone arguement for them just to refute it with coherence.

Let's put the "excessively simplistic and divisive" litmus test to the portion I quoted:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s

Excessively simplistic:the parish's own web site itselfhttp://www.holytrinitycathedral.org/history.htmlmakes reference to the Russians, Serbians and Arabs that made up the original population along with the Greeks, and to the Ukrainian priest Agapij Honcharenko was served as the first priest. "Greeks in America," Thomas Burgess, an early source (1913, i.e. before the founding of the GOARCH) showshttp://www.holytrinitycathedral.org/history.htmlthe Czar of Russia gave that parish its vestments and sacred vessels (they still display the Gospel Book), and that the Church's records were in English (as many didn't know Greek, not being Greek). As this would be through the local Russian bishop, it is rather hard to argue that the Greeks were unaware of the bishop. http://books.google.com/books?id=0rOzGa-KjygC&pg=PA24&dq=New+York+Russian+consulate+OrthodoxBurgess also notes "in all these places [he lists a number of Pan-Orthodox founding parishes, under the Russian bishops], as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens."

and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York.

LOL. Yes, parishes. Excessively simplistic: The original organization, the Society of Athena (founded with the help IIRC of a Greek Prince who passed through New York on an American Tour) received a priest, Fr. Ferentinos from the CoG. The Board of Trustees didn't along with the Society, however, so they seperated the parish administration from the Society. The Society then founded another parish and got a priest from the EP, who was unaware of the goings on in NY. Fr. Ferentinos ended up in New Orleans. http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA131&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA130,M1

Divisive: before the Russian Mission returned to New York. That would mean it was there first. (btw, the article's characterization of Fr. Bjerring's mission conflicts with other, DOCUMENTED, sources I've read. Hence I would like to know what Fr. Herbel is getting his information). It is fair to assume that the Imperial Russian Consulate also saw to religious services, as it did in SF and other places until a permanent parish was set up, in the interum. Not terribly important, as a couple years after the founding of the Society of Athena, we find this from the hagiography of St. Raphael Hawaweeny:

Quote

Archimandrite Raphael arrived in New York on November 2, 1895, and was welcomed by a delegation of Arab Christians who were awaiting their leader from Russia. On November 5, his first Sunday in America, he assisted Bishop NICHOLAS in serving the Divine Liturgy at the Russian church in New York city. Less than two weeks after his arrival, Archimandrite Raphael found a suitable place in lower Manhattan to set up a chapel, and furnished it with ecclesiastical items that he had brought with him from Russia. Bishop NICHOLAS blessed the new chapel, which was dedicated to St Nicholas of Myra.

http://antiochianvillage.org/camp/liturgical/patron/straphael.htmlSo nearly the same time as "Greek parishes were established in New York," we have a Russian Bishop in New York, celebrating DL at the (re)constituted Russian Church in NY for the arrival of the future Arab bishop (and saint), the first ordained in the New World, who founded a second parish in NYC, not in the divisive spirit that spawned the Greek parishes, but in the unity of the Arabs within the Russian diocese of America.

Quote

For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument

I'd agree that we need to be very careful. Too bad the article is not. For instance, the excessivly simplistic

Quote

Ft. Ross, which had never been anything more than an outpost chapel, had been abandoned in 1841.

omits that the Russians, Aleuts and Pomo (the local Amerindians in CA) who didn't go to Alaska (and not all did), settled around Sacramento and SF. And the Chaplancy of the Imperial Navy, which provided the needs for the Ft. Ross Chapel, continued to do so in SF, and directly had a role in the founding of Holy Trinity Cathedral in SF. Two of the former governors of the Fort Ross stayed on for the Gold Rush (one patenting a gold wash machine). Holy Trinity was founded with the help of the Honorable George Fisher, a Serb played a role in American history from Mississippi, New Orleans, Texas and then CA, and at the time was the consul for the Greek Kingdom, hence representative of the Holy Synod of the CoG. It also omits the fact that around the time of the founding of the GOARCH, Fr. Ross Chapel had been returned to Orthodox worship, as continues to this day. It is also divisive, as it implies that the foundations by the disobedient, which how even the Chief Secretary characterizes the origins of the Greek parishes, somehow should be put on a par with the canonical episcopate which was established in New York (evidently the only place that counts in the article) before the establishment of episcopal oversight, let alone the presence of a bishop, by any other "jurisdiction."

Of course, the Amerindian Orthodox-Aleut, Tlingit, Kashaya Pomo, etc.-where in America first, and they were, and are, under the Russian/OCA bishops.

Quote

and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

Excessively simplistic:no one really claims a diocese on the continent until the CoG does so in 1918, and then makes Archb. Meletios of Athens, still resident in Athens (i.e. not in America) bishop of said "diocese." By then, nearly two decades had passed since the Russian Church had organized its diocese into the Archdiocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, with vicar bishops for Alaska, for the Arabs, etc. with bishops criss-crossing the continent visiting parishes in all corners of it.

Divisive: whereas the Russian Orthodox Church had organized and built the diocese that spaned the continent and all communities, neither CoG nor Constantinople had ANY direct part in building the Church in America, something the Chief Secretary admits and bemoans. Case in point: when St. Tikhon went to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC in 1904, he was basically expelled, and the parish incorporated itself to prevent it being taken over by St. Tikhon, the only hiearch of a hiearchal Church, which the Orthodox Church is (the distinction is important for American law). Anywhere else, this would be called schismatic: why is it acceptable in America? In contrast, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Chicago (which predated the one in NYC) invited St. Tikhon to come serve in 1901, which he did.

So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below? BY NO MEANS!

Quote

And now for the position of the priest, the pastor (ephemerios) of the community. He has no power as far as the written constitution goes. Thus we find a most anomolous condition in the Greek churches in America. It works something like the worst side of the vestry system of the Episcopal Church parishes, without the legal rights of the rector, nor the possibility of intervention by the Bishop; or another analogy might apply in some instances,-Congregationalsim run wild in a mission of the Apostolic, Catholic, Eastern Church! From afar the Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens (note: The Patriarch of Constantinople has ceded to the Holy Synod of Athens the charge of the Greek Orthodox missions in America) rules without the possibility of settling anything, much as the Bishop of London had charge of the Anglican parishes in this country before the Revelotion. So the Greek priest is hired, and often "fired," by a parish committee composed usually of poorly educated peasants. And thus come the wranglings and disputes and divisions into two rival church communities of a city; and thus the poor priests, sent out by the Holy Synod in response to the cry for spiritual help, sometimes find themselves as office boys at the mercy of their employers. Moreoever, there are also some priests who have no right here; these are Macedonians, mostly of little education, who, coming to America, have slipped their bishop's jurisdiction and are ministering without authority wherever they can make the most money, sometimes underbidding and ousting the priests sent by a bishop. Of course, conditions are not everywhere bad in communities, but the system is sadly irresponsible. The only solution seems to be a resident bishop for America; may his advent be soon!

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

But what about the article's thesis that the way you're arguing your point is excessively simplistic and divisive? How about addressing that rather than getting hung up on the article's apparent lack of proper citations (which you may, in fact, be advancing as an ad hominem argument to distract us from looking at the real problem)?

Christ is Risen!

I find it a rather intriguing thesis that pointing out that someone has failed to argue, let alone substantiate, his thesis constitutes an ad hominem attack. I rather dislike having to make someone arguement for them just to refute it with coherence.

Let's put the "excessively simplistic and divisive" litmus test to the portion I quoted:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s

Excessively simplistic:the parish's own web site itselfhttp://www.holytrinitycathedral.org/history.htmlmakes reference to the Russians, Serbians and Arabs that made up the original population along with the Greeks, and to the Ukrainian priest Agapij Honcharenko was served as the first priest. "Greeks in America," Thomas Burgess, an early source (1913, i.e. before the founding of the GOARCH) showshttp://www.holytrinitycathedral.org/history.htmlthe Czar of Russia gave that parish its vestments and sacred vessels (they still display the Gospel Book), and that the Church's records were in English (as many didn't know Greek, not being Greek). As this would be through the local Russian bishop, it is rather hard to argue that the Greeks were unaware of the bishop. http://books.google.com/books?id=0rOzGa-KjygC&pg=PA24&dq=New+York+Russian+consulate+OrthodoxBurgess also notes "in all these places [he lists a number of Pan-Orthodox founding parishes, under the Russian bishops], as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens."

and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York.

LOL. Yes, parishes. Excessively simplistic: The original organization, the Society of Athena (founded with the help IIRC of a Greek Prince who passed through New York on an American Tour) received a priest, Fr. Ferentinos from the CoG. The Board of Trustees didn't along with the Society, however, so they seperated the parish administration from the Society. The Society then founded another parish and got a priest from the EP, who was unaware of the goings on in NY. Fr. Ferentinos ended up in New Orleans. http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA131&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA130,M1

Divisive: before the Russian Mission returned to New York. That would mean it was there first. (btw, the article's characterization of Fr. Bjerring's mission conflicts with other, DOCUMENTED, sources I've read. Hence I would like to know what Fr. Herbel is getting his information). It is fair to assume that the Imperial Russian Consulate also saw to religious services, as it did in SF and other places until a permanent parish was set up, in the interum. Not terribly important, as a couple years after the founding of the Society of Athena, we find this from the hagiography of St. Raphael Hawaweeny:

Quote

Archimandrite Raphael arrived in New York on November 2, 1895, and was welcomed by a delegation of Arab Christians who were awaiting their leader from Russia. On November 5, his first Sunday in America, he assisted Bishop NICHOLAS in serving the Divine Liturgy at the Russian church in New York city. Less than two weeks after his arrival, Archimandrite Raphael found a suitable place in lower Manhattan to set up a chapel, and furnished it with ecclesiastical items that he had brought with him from Russia. Bishop NICHOLAS blessed the new chapel, which was dedicated to St Nicholas of Myra.

http://antiochianvillage.org/camp/liturgical/patron/straphael.htmlSo nearly the same time as "Greek parishes were established in New York," we have a Russian Bishop in New York, celebrating DL at the (re)constituted Russian Church in NY for the arrival of the future Arab bishop (and saint), the first ordained in the New World, who founded a second parish in NYC, not in the divisive spirit that spawned the Greek parishes, but in the unity of the Arabs within the Russian diocese of America.

Quote

For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument

I'd agree that we need to be very careful. Too bad the article is not. For instance, the excessivly simplistic

Quote

Ft. Ross, which had never been anything more than an outpost chapel, had been abandoned in 1841.

omits that the Russians, Aleuts and Pomo (the local Amerindians in CA) who didn't go to Alaska (and not all did), settled around Sacramento and SF. And the Chaplancy of the Imperial Navy, which provided the needs for the Ft. Ross Chapel, continued to do so in SF, and directly had a role in the founding of Holy Trinity Cathedral in SF. Two of the former governors of the Fort Ross stayed on for the Gold Rush (one patenting a gold wash machine). Holy Trinity was founded with the help of the Honorable George Fisher, a Serb played a role in American history from Mississippi, New Orleans, Texas and then CA, and at the time was the consul for the Greek Kingdom, hence representative of the Holy Synod of the CoG. It also omits the fact that around the time of the founding of the GOARCH, Fr. Ross Chapel had been returned to Orthodox worship, as continues to this day. It is also divisive, as it implies that the foundations by the disobedient, which how even the Chief Secretary characterizes the origins of the Greek parishes, somehow should be put on a par with the canonical episcopate which was established in New York (evidently the only place that counts in the article) before the establishment of episcopal oversight, let alone the presence of a bishop, by any other "jurisdiction."

Of course, the Amerindian Orthodox-Aleut, Tlingit, Kashaya Pomo, etc.-where in America first, and they were, and are, under the Russian/OCA bishops.

Quote

and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

Excessively simplistic:no one really claims a diocese on the continent until the CoG does so in 1918, and then makes Archb. Meletios of Athens, still resident in Athens (i.e. not in America) bishop of said "diocese." By then, nearly two decades had passed since the Russian Church had organized its diocese into the Archdiocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, with vicar bishops for Alaska, for the Arabs, etc. with bishops criss-crossing the continent visiting parishes in all corners of it.

Divisive: whereas the Russian Orthodox Church had organized and built the diocese that spaned the continent and all communities, neither CoG nor Constantinople had ANY direct part in building the Church in America, something the Chief Secretary admits and bemoans. Case in point: when St. Tikhon went to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC in 1904, he was basically expelled, and the parish incorporated itself to prevent it being taken over by St. Tikhon, the only hiearch of a hiearchal Church, which the Orthodox Church is (the distinction is important for American law). Anywhere else, this would be called schismatic: why is it acceptable in America? In contrast, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Chicago (which predated the one in NYC) invited St. Tikhon to come serve in 1901, which he did.

So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below? BY NO MEANS!

Quote

And now for the position of the priest, the pastor (ephemerios) of the community. He has no power as far as the written constitution goes. Thus we find a most anomolous condition in the Greek churches in America. It works something like the worst side of the vestry system of the Episcopal Church parishes, without the legal rights of the rector, nor the possibility of intervention by the Bishop; or another analogy might apply in some instances,-Congregationalsim run wild in a mission of the Apostolic, Catholic, Eastern Church! From afar the Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens (note: The Patriarch of Constantinople has ceded to the Holy Synod of Athens the charge of the Greek Orthodox missions in America) rules without the possibility of settling anything, much as the Bishop of London had charge of the Anglican parishes in this country before the Revelotion. So the Greek priest is hired, and often "fired," by a parish committee composed usually of poorly educated peasants. And thus come the wranglings and disputes and divisions into two rival church communities of a city; and thus the poor priests, sent out by the Holy Synod in response to the cry for spiritual help, sometimes find themselves as office boys at the mercy of their employers. Moreoever, there are also some priests who have no right here; these are Macedonians, mostly of little education, who, coming to America, have slipped their bishop's jurisdiction and are ministering without authority wherever they can make the most money, sometimes underbidding and ousting the priests sent by a bishop. Of course, conditions are not everywhere bad in communities, but the system is sadly irresponsible. The only solution seems to be a resident bishop for America; may his advent be soon!

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Forget facts; the overly-long and multiply-nested posts turn the attention away without even getting to the content. There's got to be a better way!

Christ is Risen!

OK:

Archb. Metaxakis' of Athens speech to the Holy Synod of Greece in 1920 concerning his visit to America:

Quote

The Patriarchal Tome of 1908 directed the immediate assignment of a Greek Bishop in America. However I learned in America that for a decade, diplomatic pressures prevented the implementation of the Patriarchal Tome. Upon my arrival, I waited for the Russian Bishop to come to me; however, he did not. In order to give him the opportunity, I sent Archimandrites Chrysostom and Alexander to him. He, in turn, reciprocated by sending an Archimandrite to visit me. I then realized that he expected me to visit him, thus recognizing him as the canonical Bishop in America, under whose jurisdiction the Greek Church ought to belong. I held a press conference with the Greek and English language newspapers, in which I quoted Orthodox teaching relative to lands outside the existing Patriarchal boundaries that canon law places them under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Church in America is under the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and only by its authority can certain actions be taken. Our presence in America is by virtue of the permission granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Tome of 1908, rendering us the only canonical jurisdiction[emph. in the original] No other such permission has been granted. We are aware only that the Patriarchate of Antioch requested the permission of the Patriarchate to send the Bishop of Seleucia to America for the needs of the Syrian Orthodox. Prior to this, Efthymios, who was ordained by the Russians for the Syrians, but never recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, was abandoned by the Russians. This event reinforced our position regarding canonicity in America. Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially

Change Russian to OCA, and see how little has changed. The GOARCH was set up, not in ignorance of the Russian Archdiocese, but in defiance of it.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 12:48:52 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What would you say to the assertion he makes in his quoted statement that Antioch sought the permission of the EP to send a bishop to the US?

Apart from the fact that I wouldn't trust anything asserted by Meletrios Metaxakis without evidence,

Right you are, OL!

Besides the millet issue, I'll just add the feigned ignorance of the Greeks that a Russian Bishop presided in North America.

It is suggested that St. Tikhon, returning to Russia in 1907, was inducing the Holy Synod into pressuring Constantinople into placing or returning the Greek parishes under the Russian omophoron, as Russia had forced the Phanar into accepting an Arab Patriarch in Antioch, and was pressuring for the same in Jerusalem (or at least some concern for the flock there). That could be the only thing that Bp/Archp/EP/Pope Meletius is refering to, as "diplomatic pressures" were exerted on Constantinople, not the U.S.

But the knowledge would have been available to the CoG as well: George Fisher, mentioned above, was consul for the Kingdom of Greece in SF (called in the contempoary account of the NY Times "the best organized Greek community" in America), and he co-founded with the Russian consul there and the remnants of the Fort Ross settlement, the first Orthodox parish in SF in 1864, in his own home. The report to the bishop of Alaska specifically mentions the priest ministering to the Greeks. Said report led to the plan to move the See to SF within a few years.

After the 1908 Tomos, and the contiued absence of any Greek bishop, Fr. Michael Andreas, a missionary priest in the Russian mission (having studied in St. Petersburg) serving at the Diocese Cathedral in SF, reportedly went to Constantinople (he was of a Phanariot family) to request a Greek bishop for the Greek-Americans (as the Syrians had in the Russian Diocese, and the Serbs and Albanians were preparing to get) in 1912. Wheter this was an official request or a low level one is not clear, so it is not clear if this would be part of the "diplomatic pressure" spoken of. It does indicate, however, the Phanar knew of the Russian bishop.

Evidence is also indictated from contemporary accounts on Orthodoxy: the article in the "Catholic Encyclopedia" (whose fame went outside those under the Vatican) states:

Quote

Greek immigration was confined to the hundreds until 1890; the immigration figures for 1905-08 are: Greece, 77,607; Turkey, 19,032. The first Greek church (Holy Trinity) was opened in New York City in 1891 by Rev. P Ferentinos from Greece. Subsequently the new church on East 72nd Street was acquired, in which they have erected one of the finest Greek interiors — the altar, iconostasis and throne being of Pentelic marble. The Greeks have begun to build fine churches. There are (1909) about 130,000 Greeks in the United States chiefly in the Eastern and Middle States, and they publish eighteen newspapers, including two dailies. They have 32 churches in the United States and 2 in Canada, some — like Holy Trinity of Lowell, Massachusetts, and Holy Trinity of New York City — of considerable importance. Their clergy consist of 7 archimandrites, 3 monks, and 25 secular priests, but the churches are in the main governed by the lay trustees and particularly by the president of the board. Of these Greek clergy, 15 are subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and 20 to the Holy Synod of Athens. This circumstance and the fact that a part of the Greeks come from the Turkish Empire and the other part from the Kingdom of Greece have given rise to many dissensions and prevented the nomination of a Greek bishop for the United States, neither the patriarch nor the Synod wishing to cede such an appointment to the other. On the other hand, they both decline to admit or recognize the authority of the Russian bishops here.

Note, his information predates the 1908 Tome, but was published after.

Fortescue's contemporary (1907) tome, "The Orthodox Eastern Church," mentions the Russian bishop in San Francisco with fifty thousand "subjects" in the United States.

And then there is Burgess' contemporary comment above, that "in all these places [he lists a number of Pan-Orthodox founding parishes, under the Russian bishops], as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens."

So, no it seems impossible that the Greeks, either CoG or the Phanar, were unaware of the Russian bishop's presence. But that they felt they had to deny it is telling.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 06:19:13 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

You state that New Orleans was not part of the US at that time, which, of course, if factually false, since Louisiana had been part of the US, not just as a territory but as a state, since April 30, 1812. Alaska, however, was not a state at all during any of the discussion period. In fact, it was part of Russia until 1867, and then still wasn't a state until half a century ago. Bishop Tikhon's request for the mission of the Aleutian islands was made after his travels beginning in 1898 for a renaming of the Mission, to be changed to the "Diocese of the Aleutians and North America" and suggested that the diocesan see be transferred to New York. His request was granted in 1905. With regard to the New Orleans parish in 1867, although true that he did give church vessels, the "antimension" myth was added later, for, indeed, a tsar cannot give an antimension, and they would have already had to have had an antimension at that time, since the Tsar's gifts came later, and he was already serving.

You state that New Orleans was not part of the US at that time, which, of course, if factually false, since Louisiana had been part of the US, not just as a territory but as a state, since April 30, 1812.

His quote was founded on the matter of "Louisiana had seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn't re-enter until 1865."

You state that New Orleans was not part of the US at that time, which, of course, if factually false, since Louisiana had been part of the US, not just as a territory but as a state, since April 30, 1812.

His quote was founded on the matter of "Louisiana had seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn't re-enter until 1865."

You state that New Orleans was not part of the US at that time, which, of course, if factually false, since Louisiana had been part of the US, not just as a territory but as a state, since April 30, 1812.

His quote was founded on the matter of "Louisiana had seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn't re-enter until 1865."

But the parish was founded in 1867...hence was part of the US

Regardless, the secession was never recognized by the United States. In fact, the entire justification for the civil war was that they were states of the US and could not secede, and thus were seen officially (and still are today except for certain people who are still fighting the civil war) recognize that they remained states "under seige" of a secessionist government, which was a crime of the US. To acknowledge that the leadership of the southern states unlawfully broke away from the US is one thing, to claim that they were a different country during the civil war years is the position of old dixie, but not of the United States.

I am confused by these arguments. If the EP doesn't believe in ecclesiastical nationalism, why would anyone use the borders of the United States as an argument to decide which mother church can claim the whole continent?

Besides that point, another very important distinction to keep in mind is that the Russian Orthodox Church was the first to do missionary work (not chaplaincy work) in the North America continent.

In other words, none of the other mother churches, except for the Russian effort in Alaska, was originally mission oriented. The various clergy who came to the United States, came to serve the needs of immigrants who were Orthodox Christians. A more accurate description of their service can be described as chaplaincy. Establishing parishes for those already of the faith is not “missionary” work, but chaplaincy. We are expected to do both mission and chaplaincy, but they are not the same. Chaplaincy does not expand the Body of Christ, it maintains it. Mission expands it, makes it grow.

I am confused by these arguments. If the EP doesn't believe in ecclesiastical nationalism, why would anyone use the borders of the United States as an argument to decide which mother church can claim the whole continent?

Besides that point, another very important distinction to keep in mind is that the Russian Orthodox Church was the first to do missionary work (not chaplaincy work) in the North America continent.

In other words, none of the other mother churches, except for the Russian effort in Alaska, was originally mission oriented. The various clergy who came to the United States, came to serve the needs of immigrants who were Orthodox Christians. A more accurate description of their service can be described as chaplaincy. Establishing parishes for those already of the faith is not “missionary” work, but chaplaincy. We are expected to do both mission and chaplaincy, but they are not the same. Chaplaincy does not expand the Body of Christ, it maintains it. Mission expands it, makes it grow.

I like this distinction--"chaplaincy" is absolutely the right word. Although the Russian mission was to a Russian land at the time it began, it was, nonetheless, the only actual mission-oriented effort in the US and did seek to turn outward and expand in the late 19th century to some degree (although reading some of the actual correspondance of this time period can get a little discouraging) and also the early 20th century. All the rest were immigrant chaplaincies, as you rightly point out.

I am confused by these arguments. If the EP doesn't believe in ecclesiastical nationalism, why would anyone use the borders of the United States as an argument to decide which mother church can claim the whole continent?

Ha, ha. Ask the OCA that.

Well, the EP supporters also seem to think it is an equally valid claim hence all the arguments about a few Greek immigrants to Florida a couple hundred years ago which involved no missionary work and a very weak chaplaincy effort. The OCA claim is stronger based on the reality that the Alaska diocese, which is the result of the original missionary work, is a part of their church.

Anyway, EP supporters, can't use the borders argument because the EP doesn't believe in ecclesiastical nationalism. Better polish up the arguments that we are all barbarians, living in barbarian lands in relation to the now defunct, Eastern Roman Empire, even though some of us supposed barbarians are actually roum decedents.

Besides that point, another very important distinction to keep in mind is that the Russian Orthodox Church was the first to do missionary work (not chaplaincy work) in the North America continent.

In other words, none of the other mother churches, except for the Russian effort in Alaska, was originally mission oriented. The various clergy who came to the United States, came to serve the needs of immigrants who were Orthodox Christians. A more accurate description of their service can be described as chaplaincy. Establishing parishes for those already of the faith is not “missionary” work, but chaplaincy. We are expected to do both mission and chaplaincy, but they are not the same. Chaplaincy does not expand the Body of Christ, it maintains it. Mission expands it, makes it grow.

I like this distinction--"chaplaincy" is absolutely the right word. Although the Russian mission was to a Russian land at the time it began, it was, nonetheless, the only actual mission-oriented effort in the US and did seek to turn outward and expand in the late 19th century to some degree (although reading some of the actual correspondance of this time period can get a little discouraging) and also the early 20th century. All the rest were immigrant chaplaincies, as you rightly point out.

Dear Father,

A very wise Orthodox Christian pointed out the difference to me once. He explained clearly to me that, we have two imperatives to attend to in the Church. Keep the current faithful living an Orthodox Christian life, and spread the faith to those around us. He would tell me, "Don't you find it odd that we pat ourselves on the back for the 'accomplishment' of keeping existing Orthodox Christians in the Church? That is not evangelization, it is retention. We must be careful not to confuse this with Church growth. Church growth is when the total of the Body of Christ is increased WORLDWIDE. If the apostles used our worldview, Christianity would have been a quaint event of eleven people who followed Christ, then died off. WOW - they only had one of their number leave the faith. That's a 90% retention rate."

I am confused by these arguments. If the EP doesn't believe in ecclesiastical nationalism, why would anyone use the borders of the United States as an argument to decide which mother church can claim the whole continent?

Ha, ha. Ask the OCA that.

Well, the EP supporters also seem to think it is an equally valid claim hence all the arguments about a few Greek immigrants to Florida a couple hundred years ago which involved no missionary work and a very weak chaplaincy effort. The OCA claim is stronger based on the reality that the Alaska diocese, which is the result of the original missionary work, is a part of their church.

Anyway, EP supporters, can't use the borders argument because the EP doesn't believe in ecclesiastical nationalism. Better polish up the arguments that we are all barbarians, living in barbarian lands in relation to the now defunct, Eastern Roman Empire, even though some of us supposed barbarians are actually roum decedents.

Actually, it is not Constantinople that holds the position, but Moscow that the term "barbarians" refers to people. Constantinople officially rejects that the 28th canon refers to people as "barbarians."

The longstanding position of Constantinople on the term Barbarian in the canons is that it is NOT a noun used to refer to people, but is an adjective to describe nations which were not part of the Roman commonwealth. Ecclesiologically, the noun barbarian (i.e. referring to a person) is not used. No Christian is a "barbarian," and, again, the noun "barbarian" is not what is used in the 28th canon. The use of the adjective barbaros regarding nations outside the empire was because, at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Council, this was the actual legal definition of the adjective barbaros. It is an adjective, not a plural noun (meaning that the people are "barbarians"), as can be seen on the official patriarchate website:"The geographical extent of its own ground was extended to the then administrations of the Roman Empire in Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as to the “barbarian” lands, i. e. those which were outside the boundaries of the then Roman Empire...The adjective “barbarian” defines the noun “nations”...Barbarian nations or countries are, as has been said, those provinces which lay beyond the Roman Empire at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Synod..." (http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en).

The longstanding position of Moscow argue mainly by Troitsky in the mid-20th century, and was adopted most vocally by Alexei II, is that the term "barbarians" refers not to lands but rather to people, and that when Constantinople granted Moscow autocephaly it granted it power over all barbarian peoples of "Russian origin." "It seems obvious that this inaccurate interpretation derives from an erroneous understanding of the term 'among the barbarians' (en tois barbarikois) and of the context of this _expression. It is erroneous in that it assumes that the issue here does not concern 'barbarian' peoples living either in the Roman Empire or beyond its limits, but administrative entities (defined by the State) and inhabited primarily by 'barbarians'. Yet there is no doubt but that this _expression refers not to provinces but to peoples; it is not used in an administrative, but in an ethnic sense. This follows clearly from the considerations that we shall develop below." (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.shtml)

Interesting indeed. Of course, it piling statement after statement without citation or substantiation, and with little argumentation to connect it is a wee problem.

Already got enough rods in the fire on this topic, but just to show the point:

Quote

There was a Greek Orthodox parish in New Orleans from the 1860s and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York. For this reason, we need to be very careful with both the “who was in America first” argument and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

New Orleans wasn't technically in the US at the time. Said parish's first priest is of rather colored career. Said parish also received, and still has, the Gospel that Czar sent along with vestments. Said parish was also preceded by a parish in Galveston, which still exists (Serbian Orthodox), and which did send after its founding for a priest from the Bishop of Alaska.

You state that New Orleans was not part of the US at that time, which, of course, if factually false, since Louisiana had been part of the US, not just as a territory but as a state, since April 30, 1812.

Cleaveland has already provided the facts (but the wrong date) on this.

Quote

Alaska, however, was not a state at all during any of the discussion period. In fact, it was part of Russia until 1867, and then still wasn't a state until half a century ago.

It was a territory during the whole of the discussion period (if we are starting with your date of 1867 for Holy Trinity in New Orleans). But since the See was in San Francisco since 1872 (actually earlier, but the official transferwas signed by the Ruling Holy Synod in 1872), I'm not sure of the relevance.

Quote

Bishop Tikhon's request for the mission of the Aleutian islands was made after his travels beginning in 1898 for a renaming of the Mission, to be changed to the "Diocese of the Aleutians and North America" and suggested that the diocesan see be transferred to New York. His request was granted in 1905.

Which still predated the Tomos of 1908, and Bp/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius' violation of canon 8 of Ephesus.

Quote

With regard to the New Orleans parish in 1867, although true that he did give church vessels, the "antimension" myth was added later,

What antimension myth?

Quote

for, indeed, a tsar cannot give an antimension,

No, but his Ruling Holy Synod could.

Quote

and they would have already had to have had an antimension at that time, since the Tsar's gifts came later, and he was already serving.

That is what I thought. But supposedly no one knows where the first antimens came from, or what happened with it. On the first priest, Fr. Ahapij Honcherenko, as I posted:

The 1864 date for the parish's founding is problematic, as Fr. Ahapij appears in the New York Times (the www.holy-trinity link above) as newly arrived from Greece. The problem is that his bio in his newspaper makes it appear that he fled Greece, so some reconciliation is needed for that and his claimed "accredidation" by the "Metropolitan of Athens and the Holy Synod of Greece" (of course, in of itself a problem, as the CoG now subscribes to the EP's official line, and so, occuring before 1908, would have no right to "accredit" Fr. Ahapij for the States).

Btw, Father, I see you are in UOC. How has Fr. Ahapij's story fared among the Ukrainians here?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

(and still are today except for certain people who are still fighting the civil war

like historians setting the record straight.

Quote

) recognize that they remained states "under seige" of a secessionist government,

Yes, spin is not a new thing.

If they remained states, then how come they had to satisfy Congress' demands to be re-admitted. Plain English dictated that you have to leave before you can be RE-admitted.

Btw, LA wasn't readmitted to the union until June 25 or July 9, 1868 (depending on whether you count when the LA satisfied the terms and was readmitted, or when its Congressional delegation was accepted).

Quote

which was a crime of the US.

Actually, no, it wasnt'. No statute nor any case law criminalizing it.

I'm afraid I've never been much on the victors-write-history school (I'm a historian by training). Truth always comes up and makes the revisionist just look ridiculus.

Quote

To acknowledge that the leadership of the southern states unlawfully broke away from the US is one thing,

Sorry, I'm from Illinois. Terms weren't dictated to us for readmission.

Quote

to claim that they were a different country during the civil war years is the position of old dixie, but not of the United States.

It's also the position of history.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 11:03:40 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

His quote was founded on the matter of "Louisiana had seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn't re-enter until 1865."

But the parish was founded in 1867...hence was part of the US

So was Alaska. And also under military occupation.

I thought Alaska was not one of the United States of America until 1958. Since when does military occupation constitute statehood?

I didn't say it was a state. I merely stated the fact that in 1867 both Alaska and Louisiana were territories owned by the US and under occupation of its armed forces, with a military government.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, actually you can. I'm ruumiy when I'm with anyone but the Greeks. Then I'm not ruumiy (by their definition).

Won't they Commune you?

Yes, they will.

Quote

What have you done?

Not speak Greek at home.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes!

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.

This is one of those "Atheist Jew," or "can a Greek be an atheist" type questions. I don't know if an unbaptized Greek (they do exist) is ruumiy or not. It would seem they are by default, because they're not Arab not Coptic (in Egypt) nor Syriac (in Syria). And they're not Muslim. There were some Muslim Greeks in Lebanon, but I don't recall if they were called ruum or not.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

After the 1908 Tomos, and the contiued absence of any Greek bishop, Fr. Michael Andreas, a missionary priest in the Russian mission (having studied in St. Petersburg) serving at the Diocese Cathedral in SF, reportedly went to Constantinople (he was of a Phanariot family) to request a Greek bishop for the Greek-Americans (as the Syrians had in the Russian Diocese, and the Serbs and Albanians were preparing to get) in 1912. Wheter this was an official request or a low level one is not clear, so it is not clear if this would be part of the "diplomatic pressure" spoken of. It does indicate, however, the Phanar knew of the Russian bishop.

This just caught my eye:

Quote

As regards America, from 1794 Orthodoxy on that continent was represented exclusively by the Church of Russia, which by 1918 had brought together some 300,000 Orthodox of different nationalities (Russian, Ukrainians, Serbs, Albanians, Arabs, Aleuts, Indians, Africans, English). The Greek Orthodox were among them, receiving antimensia for their parishes from the Russian bishops. This situation was recognised by all the local Churches, who released clergy for the American parishes into the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of Constantinople followed the same practice. For example, when in 1912 the Greek Orthodox in America asked His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim III to send a Greek bishop, the Patriarch did not send a bishop himself, nor did he refer the request to the Church of Greece, but recommended that it be referred to Archbishop Platon of the Aleutian Islands and North America so that the question could be settled by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The longstanding position of Moscow argue mainly by Troitsky in the mid-20th century, and was adopted most vocally by Alexei II, is that the term "barbarians" refers not to lands but rather to people, and that when Constantinople granted Moscow autocephaly it granted it power over all barbarian peoples of "Russian origin." "It seems obvious that this inaccurate interpretation derives from an erroneous understanding of the term 'among the barbarians' (en tois barbarikois) and of the context of this _expression. It is erroneous in that it assumes that the issue here does not concern 'barbarian' peoples living either in the Roman Empire or beyond its limits, but administrative entities (defined by the State) and inhabited primarily by 'barbarians'. Yet there is no doubt but that this _expression refers not to provinces but to peoples; it is not used in an administrative, but in an ethnic sense. This follows clearly from the considerations that we shall develop below." (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.shtml)

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

After the 1908 Tomos, and the contiued absence of any Greek bishop, Fr. Michael Andreas, a missionary priest in the Russian mission (having studied in St. Petersburg) serving at the Diocese Cathedral in SF, reportedly went to Constantinople (he was of a Phanariot family) to request a Greek bishop for the Greek-Americans (as the Syrians had in the Russian Diocese, and the Serbs and Albanians were preparing to get) in 1912. Wheter this was an official request or a low level one is not clear, so it is not clear if this would be part of the "diplomatic pressure" spoken of. It does indicate, however, the Phanar knew of the Russian bishop.

This just caught my eye:

Quote

As regards America, from 1794 Orthodoxy on that continent was represented exclusively by the Church of Russia, which by 1918 had brought together some 300,000 Orthodox of different nationalities (Russian, Ukrainians, Serbs, Albanians, Arabs, Aleuts, Indians, Africans, English). The Greek Orthodox were among them, receiving antimensia for their parishes from the Russian bishops. This situation was recognised by all the local Churches, who released clergy for the American parishes into the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of Constantinople followed the same practice. For example, when in 1912 the Greek Orthodox in America asked His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim III to send a Greek bishop, the Patriarch did not send a bishop himself, nor did he refer the request to the Church of Greece, but recommended that it be referred to Archbishop Platon of the Aleutian Islands and North America so that the question could be settled by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The longstanding position of Moscow argue mainly by Troitsky in the mid-20th century, and was adopted most vocally by Alexei II, is that the term "barbarians" refers not to lands but rather to people, and that when Constantinople granted Moscow autocephaly it granted it power over all barbarian peoples of "Russian origin." "It seems obvious that this inaccurate interpretation derives from an erroneous understanding of the term 'among the barbarians' (en tois barbarikois) and of the context of this _expression. It is erroneous in that it assumes that the issue here does not concern 'barbarian' peoples living either in the Roman Empire or beyond its limits, but administrative entities (defined by the State) and inhabited primarily by 'barbarians'. Yet there is no doubt but that this _expression refers not to provinces but to peoples; it is not used in an administrative, but in an ethnic sense. This follows clearly from the considerations that we shall develop below." (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.shtml)

I read this too. It would seem to cast more than enough doubt on the latest spin coming out of the EP on the subject of Canon 28.

So... How does this squabbling over conflicting claims of whose presence was really established canonically advance the cause of North American unity? All I see is us Orthodox, who should know better, quarreling like a bunch of children.

So... How does this squabbling over conflicting claims of whose presence was really established canonically advance the cause of North American unity?

Perhaps you'll find out next month....

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yeah, these are just warm ups. The real quarreling like children starts later.

Warm ups? These are warm ups? The Antioch thread is a warm up too is it? And every other thread which attacks and insults "other" Churches of Christ as though we were talking about football teams? This is how Orthodox in the US warm up is it?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.